What does "Fixing to relation" actually mean?

One more question about the route - back in 2008 when I walked it there used to be a Chesterfield Round Walk route marker around here relation/68834#map=18/53.18623/-1.45678 where the highlighted relation leaves Bolehill Lane. You've added the name to this footpath way/42384438 and also this one way/42384441 suggesting that the route has been amended to run north from Bolehill Lane and then West. Has it been rerouted? There's a similar discrepancy near Linacre Middle Reservoir - does it run east of that or west of it? There's also a slight difference in Far Tupton Wood but my recollection is that there's no explicit signage there of which of the two paths through the wood it could follow.

Yes - public rights of way numbers are usually added using the prow_ref key (see prow_ref=*), and would certainly be useful to have - although of course the source has to be licence-compatible (not derived from OS non-open mapping). See osm.wiki/UK_local_councils#Government_use_of_OpenStreetMap_data and links for a bit more info on it. If you're talking to the council about "that path that runs north of Bolehill Lane east of the stream" you're just reliant on a description, not on an OS-described map, so that should be OK.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I notice that you've changed way/147941496/history east of the Fosse from a track to a bridleway. In OSM a "highway=bridleway" means something that's best adapted to use by horses, not any wider traffic. On the imagery it looks like it is a track wide enough for farm traffic etc., so probably should be a "highway=track" rathan "highway=bridleway" (or perhaps this has changed and the imagery is out of date?).

If what you were trying to record was the legal status, then that's already covered by the existing tag "designation=public_bridleway". You could add foot=yes and horse=yes as well for a "belt and braces" approach if you wanted to, but leave "highway" describing the physical status and "designation", "foot" and "horse" etc. the legal status. That way, people who are using te data (for maps, routers, or anything else) can infer both the legal access rights and whether their vehicle can physically fit.

Anywhere, hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to help. Any questions, don't hesitate to drop me a message.

Hello, if your're looking for a test database I'd suggest using http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ rather than the live one - that way no-one will think that there are things in the middle of te Atlantic!

Hi, I notice that you've joined way/310881891/history to both Gladstone Street and Gladstone Terrace. Are you sure that it actually joins both of these now? It didn't do so the last time that I was there.

I know that some places in the world (including most of the USA) struggle to find "real" on-the-ground mappers, but this part of the UK does not have this problem - if you think you've found an "error" just contact the previous mapper, mention it on IRC or add an OSM note, and someone will investigate it either answering based on local knowledge or by going and having a look.

Can you definitely tell the difference between unclassified and residential just from aerial imagery? I don't think that I'd be able to without actually going there to have a look.

The way that I add bus routes is by catching the bus and recording GPS traces.

The 3C runs from Sutton to Nottingham, so as relation/2416702#map=18/53.12587/-1.26377 suggests it's just missing the other flare along Manor Street. Buses from Nottingham collect passengers from the south side, and I think drop off at the north side of the bus station.

The 1 relation/540564#map=17/53.12590/-1.26319 actually runs as far as Woodhouse, so quite a lot of that needs adding.

The other one that I was thinking about was the 9.1 relation/1793199#map=18/53.12611/-1.26423 . That runs both east-west and west-east so uses both flares at both sides on the B road.

Thanks. What about the other relations?

Hi - I think something has gone a bit wrong here. node/3296842182/history seems to be a duplicate of node/3297089561 but in the Arctic Circle?

Sutton in Ashfield bus station:
Not sure if was there before, but relation/1075730#map=19/53.12623/-1.26436 now shows a gap to the north of the roundabout

way/320313191 seems somewhat crudely drawn. Should there really be a gap between the grass and the fence?

This seems to be a fairly extreme case of bad tagging for the renderer. I'm sure that way/320313087 is not a driveway!

way/320118334 is presumably not a residential road called "proposed"? What I suspect it probably is is a "highway=proposed; proposed=residential".

Is way/319238676 really a "bus station" with the name "bus stop"? If something really doesn't have a name there's no need to make one up for OSM. The bus stop over the road seems to be called "Village Hall" FWIW.

Is way/318965726 really spelt like that?

Re the railway, it might be worth adding a note or trying to contact local mappers to see whether it's still operational. It's not clear from te imagery, and there seem to be trees growing in some places where it should be.

Any idea what way/322462521 is? It has no tags and is not part of a relation.

At node/977901343/history you've extrapolated "highway=traffic_signals" from "highway=tr". What was the evidence for this?

I notice that you've changed the road class of way/43090911 . Was that based on survey?